Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net> Wed, 03 September 2014 06:28 UTC

Return-Path: <shraddha@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E8F1A6F8F for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 23:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F8mW_iLTem_M for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 23:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (dns-bn1lp0143.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.143]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C2F51A0011 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 23:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.24) by BY2PR05MB126.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1015.19; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 06:28:19 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.106]) by BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.106]) with mapi id 15.00.1015.018; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 06:28:19 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
Thread-Index: AQHPwKoSGbQFoOONyUaUf4QhM2C3GJvpIRSAgAXa+UA=
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 06:28:19 +0000
Message-ID: <60f1a1748bfc4deabe293f0b5b99633d@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <D0212051.2116%acee@cisco.com> <CAB75xn6B=V7CgggHVcynEOS4BPvyYHdcpfkg=y7TPAZ67a6cZQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn6B=V7CgggHVcynEOS4BPvyYHdcpfkg=y7TPAZ67a6cZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.17]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 032334F434
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(164054003)(24454002)(13464003)(51704005)(377454003)(199003)(189002)(77096002)(4396001)(77982001)(87936001)(64706001)(20776003)(46102001)(99286002)(33646002)(106356001)(76576001)(19580405001)(31966008)(106116001)(92566001)(74662001)(15975445006)(19580395003)(105586002)(86362001)(90102001)(74502001)(83322001)(85306004)(2656002)(66066001)(80022001)(108616004)(101416001)(230783001)(50986999)(21056001)(99396002)(76176999)(76482001)(107046002)(83072002)(85852003)(54356999)(81342001)(95666004)(74316001)(81542001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB126; H:BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/mGslzRxn_4bPT29VJFFoYYtZfCM
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 06:28:25 -0000

Dhruv,

Thanks for detailed review and comments.
Pls see in-line for the response.

Rgds
Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 6:22 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee)
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

Hi,

I have read the document and I support it for WG adoption.

I have following comments, that can be handled later

(1) Section 4.1
OLD:

   The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA is the same as
   the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
   [RFC3630].

   The LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value
   (TLV) triplets.  The format of each TLV is:

NEW:

   As per [RFC4970], the format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA is the same as
   the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
   [RFC3630].

   The RI LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value
   (TLV) triplets.  The format of the per-node administrative tag TLV is:

END

<Shraddha> Accept. Will be updated in the next revision.


Also, it should be stated
- if are more than one instance of this TLV in RI LSA are allowed.

<Shraddha>More than one instance of the TLV can be added in same RI-LSA or in a multiple instance as defined
                       In  draft-acee-ospf-rfc4970bis-00.txt


- Minimum one tag must be present in the TLV
<Shraddha> Accept.


- What happens if the implementation does not know the Interpretation of the tag value
<Shraddha> This is mentioned in section 4.2, However will add explicit mention regarding the scenario you mentioned.


(2) It should be explicitly stated that - No IANA registry is required to store the meaning or interpretation of.the tag values.

<Shraddha> It's mentioned in the section 4.2 that no well known  tag values will be defined by this document.

(3) Backward compatibility - few lines may be added to state that as per [RFC4970], unknown TLV would be silently ignored.
<Shraddha> Accept

Nits
- Avoid using reference in abstract
- Expand LFA on first use
- Administrative Tag TLV or 'per-node Administrative Tag' : consistent naming through the document would be nice

<Shraddha> Accept.

Regards,
Dhruv


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF 
> advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of 
> remote-LFA eligibility.
>
> Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as 
> an OSPF WG document.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf